Eye design

clarification - the reply, quoted below, seems to be mis-threaded.
ken
Dr. Clint Hoxie, O.D. wrote in message ...
|in article
v7%N9.11507$p_6.910913 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net,
|Kenneth 'pawl' Collins at k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net wrote on
12/24/02
|9:33 AM:
||> I expect the difference has more to do with the difference in
|> motion-correlated G-forces experienced.
|>|> On land, the eyes are 'hammered' with every step one takes
[shock
|> wave absorption is a necessity].
|>|> Anyway, I find evolutionary dynamics to have their own
|> 'intelligence' in that they 'read' the environment, and
converge
|> upon functionality that works in that environment.
|>|> It's why one has to be careful when attempting to
cross-correlate
|> the products of evolutionary 'engineering' with respect to
|> different environments.
|>|> Unless there's non-modal stuff in there, both are
'intelligent',
|> but only with respect to the environments in which their
|> progenitors have evolved.
|>|> The rest of the "creationism/evolution" 'debate' is just folks
|> being prejudiced with respect to that which, through
experience,
|> they've become familiar.
|>|> k. p. collins
|>|> Kent Paul Dolan wrote in message ...
|> |jmdrake_98 at yahoo.com (jmdrake) wrote:
|> |
|> |> Actually Bernd there is an "obvious reason" to do this. The
|> extra layers
|> |> of non-sensitive cells that the light must pass through
before
|> reaching
|> |> the sensitive cells acts like a "filter" to protect from UV
|> radiation.
|> |> That's such a concern that human "engineers" have devised UV
|> blocking
|> |> sunglasses to further block potentially damaging rays. The
|> eyes of the
|> |> squid work fine under water where the water itself serves to
|> filter out
|> |> extra rays. You're going off of the misconception that
squid
|> eyes
|> |> are somehow "better". They might be "better" for their
|> enviornment
|> |> but they'd be a disaster on land. Nice try though.
|> |
|> |I just love this habit of Scientific Creationists of making up
|> the
|> |science. Light, to reach the back of the eye, has to pass
through
|> the
|> |rest of the eye, millions of times as thick. Given a choice
of a
|> one
|> |cell layer deep UV filter, or a synovial(sp?) fluid chosen for
|> its
|> |(very modest, with that much pathlength in which to work) UV
|> filtering
|> |capabilities, which do you suppose an Intelligent (as opposed
to
|> "made
|> |up out of whole cloth") Designer would have chosen?
|> |
|> |The squid lucked out and evolved it done right, but the luck
of
|> blind
|> |evolution was less on the side of the mammals. End of story.
|> Were
|> |there a Designer, the panda would have a real thumb, as has
been
|> |famously noted, and which also should be in and of itself
|> evidence
|> |enough to be more than sufficient to quash such idiocy as
|> "Intelligent
|> |Design".
|> |
|> |xanthian.
|> |
|> |Note also that were there a Designer, the chambered nautilus
|> would
|> |have an eye equally capable with the squids', being fairly
|> closely
|> |related and having similar needs for a moderately similar
|> lifestyle.
|> |
|> |Instead, it has a "pinhole camera"-style eye. If there were a
|> |Designer, apparently the "Intelligent" aspect faded in and out
|> pretty
|> |often, a total contradiction to claims of omniscience and
|> |omnitemporalness.
|>|>|To make your argument more accurate, xanthian, you would need to
replace the
|word "Designer" with the phrase "Designer who thinks just like
me".
||There are numerous advantages to every design feature of every
creature on
|the planet. They don't all make sense to you, perhaps, because
you make
|inaccurate assumptions as to their purposes.
|--
|Clint Hoxie, OD
|Overland Park, KS
||Neuro-Developmental Vision Care
|Pediatric/Behavioral/Functional Vision Care
||DocHoxie at hotmail.com||||